On Saturday, November 24, 2018 at 7:40:26 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:10 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > *> Some in AI will say if something is just informationally intelligent >> (or pseudo-intelligent) but not experientially intelligent then it will not >> ever be remarkably creative - in literature, music, painting, or even >> science.* >> > > Apparently being remarkably creative is not required to be supremely good > at Chess or GO or solving equations because pseudo-intelligence will beat > true-intelligence at those things every time. The goal posts keep moving, > true intelligence is whatever computers aren't good at. Yet. > > >> > And it will not be conscious, >> > > My problem is if the AI is smarter than me it will outsmart me, but if the > AI isn't conscious that's the computers problem not mine. And besides, > I'll never know if the AI is conscious or not just as I'll never know if > you are. > > >> >*as all humans are.* >> > > Most humans are NOT remarkably creative in literature, music, painting or > science; so why do you think all humans are conscious? > > John K Clark > > >
I just happened to turn on COMET TV channel showing Dr. Goldfoot (Vincent Price) movies (Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine, Dr. Goldfoot and the Girl Bombs). *Price plays the titular mad scientist who ... builds a gang of female robots.* I think one problem for us is as artificial/synthetic intelligence technology advances: When (if ever) do these entities get "rights"? - pt -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
